Case 1300272/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G. Uzoma v The Supply Register Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300272/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G. Uzoma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought direct discrimination claims on the grounds of age, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability. The hearing was a preliminary one, including the respondent's application for strike out, and the tribunal considered the overriding objective and the strike-out jurisdiction under rule 38.
The tribunal found that contemporaneous documents showed gaps in the claimant's employment history and that he had not completed the references required before being appointed to a placement. It concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, that the claim about the respondent "moving the goalposts" was demonstrably untrue, and it struck the claims out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Struck out at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Overriding Objective (Rule 3)
- Rule 38 strike out
- no reasonable prospect of success
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Anyanwu v Southbank Students' Union
- Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council
- Ahir v British Airways Pkz
- Romanowska v Aspiration Care Ltd
- Mechkarov v Citi Bank NA
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
- Cox v Adecco Group Uk & Ireland and ors
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.